To think is to compare it is said. The latest years I have tried to study the relative strength when the greatest commander of the Antiquity, Alexander the Great won his battles and occupied the known world at that time. He often struggled against a great superior force numerable. But he was completely superior as to military technology with is new order of the army. The ancient armies were just as much a village with entertainment, women and children, as an efficient arrangement.

I've tried to look at the Swedish king Gustav 2. Adolf's military forces, which were also technological superior. Still they roughly speak about a numerable inferiority of 30-50% - at worst - on the Swedish side. The victories in The 30-years war in Germany is still quoted as memorable in the history.

It's the same when it comes to Napoleon who crushed the armies of France, Prussia, Russia and Austria. On the whole Napoleon preferred, by fast motions, to concentrate a superior force on the point where he owing to large mobility, attacked, despite he was 20% inferior of the enemy.

At an equal relative strenght all these commanders could also lose battles. If the enemy was twice as strong, both Gustav 2. Adolf and Napoleon eluded a battle. At Waterloo Napoleon had concentrated too few troops. And he was defeated.

In 1948 they were attacked some hours after the independence declaration on the 14th of May. The total of four regular Arabic armies, with large forces, field artillery, armours, fighter squadrons and bomber planes. Israel itself had four field guns, one tanks, one flight and a general shortage of handguns. Both England and the USA refused to deliver weapons to them, while the arabs unrestrictly could arm themselves. That was the situation. The enemy's armours, which is cardinal in modern war, were 150 to 1. It was not better off in other important divisions, of which we could go into detail. They were doomed to lose. Militarily. So believed also the Arabs.Men de seiret. But they gained the victory.Og etter noen uker forlangte fienden våpenhvile, og stormaktene presset på for at araberne ikke skulle tape mer land. And after some weeks the enemy demanded armistice, and the Great Powers pressed forward to avoid that the Arabs should lose more land.Det lar seg ikke forklare.Det har aldri skjedd noe slikt i militærhistorien.Og når det gjentok seg i 1967 og i 1973 om enn ikke i så dramatiske former, men med en enorm underlegenhet på materiell og antall soldater på israelsk side, må man spørre hvordan kan sånt skje?It cannot be explained.Something similar has never happened in military history.And when it was repeated in 1967 and in 1973, if not in so dramatic formes, but with an enormous inferiority of material and number of soldiers on the Israeli side, one have to ask, how can such things possibly happen.Det er ikke rart at Israels venner peker på mirakelet Israel.Er det Esekiel 36:36 som har slått til?Og er det et forvarsel på Sakarja 12, når Jerusalem skal deles?Hva som skal skje da - helt til sist, i den endetid vi ennå ikke kjenner og ikke helt vet når kommer?No wonder that Israel's friends call attention to the miracle Israel.Is it Esekiel 36:36 that have occured?And is it an omen of Sakarja 12, when Jerusalem is to be devided?What is going to happen then - all in the end, at the end of time that we still do not know, and do'nt know the time of?